is vietnam really comie??

I have a friend from Vietnam on Facebook and keep seeing ***** is now friends with Nguyen ***** *****. I didn't know if it was either a really common family name, or one huge family... Thanks for clearing that up

I'm sorry to root out this thread again, but this is a question I have wondered a lot about recently. My personal opinion is:

Vietnam has had lots of problems. There were (and, indeed, still are) the consequences of the war; there was the (in money as well as in effort) expensive reunification; and, as the real kicker, there was the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp. So the situation of Vietnam was comparable to the situation of the RSFSR in 1922.

Because of this, I think that some "capitalist" reforms are okay and necessarily. For example the allowance of private production of and free trade with consumer goods (of course only regarding small businesses and peasants, in order to avoid exxploitation) would have been the right thing to do - it would stimulate the production of the most needed goods, it would develop the productive forces, and it wouldn't even mean exploitation (or at least not in a big extent). Additionally, Joint Ventures with foreign capitalists are okay to bring capital into the country - as long as at least 51 percent of the business is property of the socialist state and the whole factory or whatever will gradually become its property. That's what Lenin did in Soviet Russia.

But the NEP had two important characteristics: It was limited time-wise as well as in its extent. The NEP took about six years. Even if Vietnam will stop the Doi Moi policy in 2020, it will have taken 44 years. But even today it takes 34 years. I can't see why it should take so much longer in Vietnam to finish the "NEP" than it took in Soviet Russia. On the other hand, I can't see how the process in Vietnam can be considered as limited when Vietnam for example becomes a member of the imperialist and neo-liberal WTO. Also, I don't think that privatizing will help to build up socialism or even communism.

I would be glad if Vietnam still was a socialist country and would soon go back to the "totally socialist" road without so-called "socialist market economy" - but I can't be too optimistic about that.

Soviet cogitations: 4779Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 May 2010, 07:43Ideology: Other LeftistPolitburo

13 May 2011, 21:10

Quote:

But the NEP had two important characteristics: It was limited time-wise as well as in its extent. The NEP took about six years. Even if Vietnam will stop the Doi Moi policy in 2020, it will have taken 44 years. But even today it takes 34 years. I can't see why it should take so much longer in Vietnam to finish the "NEP" than it took in Soviet Russia.

That's true, but on the other hand, as far as I know, Lenin never specified how long NEP was supposed to last, except that it was supposed to be temporary—perhaps trusting his successors with having the integrity and foresight to know when to carry on to the the next stage of development, but that's just speculation on my part.

Furthermore, when Stalin ended NEP and carried out his policies of collectivization and industrialization, a large number of people who were in favor of continuing NEP had also been "purged" (whether rightly or wrongly depends on who you ask). It appears as if NEP was ended and the USSR brought into the next stage by force, and that Stalin and the group in favor of collectivization and industrialization, though they knew what they wanted to do, were also kind of just making things up as they went along by making a radical shift in policies. One has to wonder if there would have been ways to carry out these policies in a less painful manner, had NEP been allowed to continue longer, with the development and necessary reforms being directed from above, as opposed to such radical policies being carried out with the speed and force that they were carried out with.

I'm not denying that USSR under the Five-Year Plans saw many improvements, but with these improvements came costs in human lives that I question if they were necessary or would have even occurred had development in the USSR took a different path. Not saying that the 5-Year Plans shouldn't have happened, but I am questioning if they had been carried out at the proper time.

Of course with historical hindsight and what we know about the industrialization efforts and the war, maybe what Stalin did was necessary, but I don't know, this is all just speculation. I don't want to go too off-topic, so back to Vietnam, it at least appears that their "NEP" stage was planned ahead of time and coordinated. I don't know if that does means anything in the long run, but at the same time, lacking enough information, I guess I won't pass judgment on this "Socialism with Vietnamese Characteristics" deal that they have going on here, since most of what is being said here is speculation anyway.

“Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals” - Mark Twain

VietNam is communist but our best friends are capitalist and we need and have alot of such "friends".That's a problem.

another problem is : communism propaganda system ( included : arts, musics, newspapers, dramas ...) in our country become less and less attractive to the people . Mostly our leaders do the work repeatedly and rarely change thier way-too-old styles so people easily get bored and tired of communism ideal.

We are still dealing with alot of social problems from the high, big leaders to the lowest people. Our traditional is mercy and generous ( even to the traitors, criminals ...ect ) yeah, that's a good point but no advantages and they'll just make us harder to solve those problems.

another big problem, Education. Schools are more like Markets, teachers are staffs, Students and their parents are customers. And you all know how real markets nowaday are ... ( you can buy almost anything as long as you got $)

Last problem, if one of our leaders see my post, they'll just end me up as a traitor, maniac or something like that .

So what is your conclusion about vietnam ? Capitalist ? Communism ? or BOTH ? I don't care

4 other things:All of that are just my tiny points of view so they can be sometime true and untrue

I'm just a communist learner, not as wealth of Knowledge or political as you guys

I'd like to sacrifice something for communism propaganda and it'll be a very Tough job if you want to inspired people ( from old to young ) about communism just by speech or writting ( even music ).

Well, I want to answer my own question from some months ago, because I think it might be of general interest.

Vietnam's policy is often compared to the Soviet NEP, and I wondered if this is accurate. What was the NEP? It was a policy characterized by a limited "re-privatization" in order to create new incentives, more innovation and more competition within the domestic economy (not to mention the new modes of operation imported by foreign investment). But even though it might have looked like a restoration of capitalism, of course it was not. Why not? Because it was limited in respect of time as well as extent. Some capitalist elements were used, in a limited extent, because this was neccessary. So, what about Vietnam? Was Doi Moi neccessary? And is it limited?

First: Was Doi Moi neccessary? I think no one can doubt that in 1986, when Doi Moi began, Vietnam was in a very difficult situation. One must not forget that Vietnam had to bear the brunt of colonialism and five wars in succession, among them the US war of extermination. Additionally, there were some home-grown mistakes, for example the too fast assimilation of the economic systems of North and South Vietnam. But the country suffered colonialism and destructive wars for almost a century, and subsequently it was one of the poorest countries in the world. I can't imagine a country and a people that had to suffer more in the 20th century (and, by the way, even though they have always been victorious, as the CPV has ever been combative, principled and adaptable).

Second. Is Doi Moi limited? Yes, it is. As far as I know, about two third of the means of production are state property. There are several restrictions and regulations for the private enterprises. The social disparity has of course grown since 1986 (remember the "Nepmen"), but I think they are not too big, at least not compared to China, where there are 128 dollar billionaires (figures from 2010). The party still holds up socialist values, the heritage of Ho Chi Minh and other important communists, and often talks about its socialist goals for the future. As it can be read in this forum (as far as I know, even in this thread), the CPV recently demanded more socialism. So one can say the reforms are limited, and the party has never lost sight of its socialist perspective.

About one year ago, I wondered if Doi Moi wouldn't last too long - even if disestablished by 2020, it would have lasted 34 years, compared to about eight years in the Soviet Union. But the Soviet Union never was a colony, it never was one of the poorest countries in the world, and it had not to suffer from five wars, but "only" from two. Preconceiving this, the long maturity of Doi Moi is more than logical and justified.

To sum it up: A "NEP", the usage of capitalism for building socialism, has to be neccessary and limited. Both is applicable for Vietnam, and so one can say that Vietnam never left the socialist road.

Soviet cogitations: 14Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 23:03Unperson

31 May 2012, 17:38

I wouldn't label Vietnam 'revisionist'. I would label it to make soothing to the ears of the majority communists of Vietnam to be

'pragmatic socialism'. You should come visit their efficiently run and managed collective farms. Even peasants are inspired to lend more of their time in collectives rather than their own private plots. I too would remain permanently in the collective and use my private plot as hobby farm. Here in Canada, so many aspiring farmers end up disillusioned for not having been able to afford a 1 acre farm, or end up bankrupt or lack in financial nor agricultural implement funding..

Vietnam used to be Communist but shortly after the Vietnam War, Vietnam abandoned Communism and Socialism in general for the free market.

Vietnam was never "communist" because communism has never existed anywhere in the world. It used to be a socialist state, but not anymore. They made the same mistakes as China and adopted a "socialist-oriented market economy" which essentially is just a form of free enterprise.

Comparing blindly PRC and Vietnam without context are wrong and doesn`t give a true reflection of the realities.

The DOI MOI policy of Vietnam (adopted in late 80`s and followed almost similarly by PDR Laos) is not the same as the "opening up" policy adopted by CCP in the late 70`s.

The Paris Communards struggled and died in the defense of their ideas. The banners of the revolution and of socialism are not surrendered without a fight. Only cowards and the demoralized surrender — never Communists and other revolutionaries.